Case study sections Task 3 EQs
1 Short presentation of the FIs in the OP and context
1.1 OP characteristics 1.2 Description of FIs
1.3 Financial performance at the level of the OP and the funds
2 Goals and theory of change of FIs
2.1 Overview on goals of the FI schemes and the theory of change (ToC)
1.1 What are the goals of the schemes and the theory of change?
2.2 Market gap assessment in the context of the private market in a given region (key element of the ToC)
1.2 What is the quality of the market gap assessment?
2.3 Contribution of FI schemes to regional development goals of the OP (key element of the ToC)
1.3 How do the schemes contribute to the regional development goals of the operational programme as a whole? 2.4 Motivation of the MA to set up FIs 1.4 What motivated the managing
authority to set up one or more FEIs? 2.5 Division of labour between FIs in an OP
(key element of the ToC)
1.6 Where there is more than one FEI in a programme, what is the division of labour between them?
Case study sections Task 3 EQs
2.6 Fit of FIs set out in the OP with other OP instruments (grants, non-financial support) and similar non-cohesion policy instruments in the same area
1.7 How do they fit with other
instruments offered by the programme (notably grants or non-financial support) or (if relevant) similar, non-Cohesion Policy instruments operating in the same area?
3 Management and implementation of FIs
3.1 Governance structure of FIs, role of MA 2.1 What is the governance structure of each FEI?
2.7 What is the relationship with the managing authority and the programme strategy? (Extent to which the MA can influence the conduct of the FI) 3.2 Type and background of fund managers 2.2 Who are the fund managers (or
managers within the programme) and what is their background?
3.3 Key differences in the management of public and private sector FI schemes (goes partly beyond the OP scope)
2.3 In their understanding, what are the key differences between public and private sector FEI schemes? 3.4 Performance and success indicators for
fund management; incentives linked to performance
2.4 What is success for the manager (and is this translated into an indicator, reported to the managing authority)? What are managers’ incentives/packages and performance requirements?
3.5 Preparation time and costs to set-up FIs 3.1 How much did the schemes cost to set-up and how long did it take? How much do they cost to run?
3.6 Management costs and fees for sound fund management
2.6 What can be done to keep management costs to an acceptable level, while still running the funds adequately?
3.7 Capacity to attract firms for FIs compared to other forms of support
3.2 How well do they manage in attracting firms (especially where there are other forms of support e.g. grants available)?
3.8 Implementation challenges 3.3 Are there other implementation issues?
3.9 Comparison of costs and implementation issues of FIs with private and other public financial support (goes partly beyond the OP scope)
3.4 How do costs and other implementation issues compare to private FEIs and other public financial support (grants, guarantees etc.) in the same region/country?
3.10 Success factors for sound administration and management of FIs
2.4 What is success for the manager (and is this translated into an indicator, reported to the managing authority)? What are managers’ incentives/packages and performance requirements?
Case study sections Task 3 EQs
3.11 Capacity of MA and fund managers to successfully run FIs; capacity building
3.6 What features of administrative and institutional capacity are crucial in successfully running such funds? To what extent do the case study Member State and regions have these capacities? How could such capacities be built/developed further and which instruments could be used to do this?
3.12 Status and health of projects in the FI portfolio
4.1 What is the status and health of the projects in their portfolio?
3.13 Approach to risk management 4.2 What is the approach to risk, e.g. do they target safe investments or high risk, high return projects?
3.14 Key features of the repayment structure for loans / exit strategy for equity and venture capital
4.3 What is the repayment structure for loans, the exit strategy for equity and venture capital?
4.4 What happens when a firm does not fail, but does not turn a profit?
4 Monitoring and evaluation of FIs
4.1 Characteristics and completeness of the indicator system
5.1 What indicators are collected? Do they cover spending and outputs only, or also results and other long term
outcomes? 4.2 Reporting provisions for fund managers
to the MA and reliability of reported data to various stakeholders
5.2 What is reported to the managing authority? How does this relate to the reliability of data reported to the Commission, notably in terms of expenditure codes and the 2012 summary of data on financial
instruments? What data is available on repayments?
4.3 Evaluations carried out to date or planned
5.3 Have there already been evaluations of these or similar schemes (and if so, what did they find)? Are evaluations planned? What will they contain – and what data is already being collected to feed them?
5 Outcomes of FI implementation
5.1 Private money levered in at the various levels of the implementation chain (leverage effect according to ec definition)
6.1 How much private money has been levered in?
5.2 Financial sustainability of FIs 6.2 How much of the money has revolved?
5.3 Actual, expected and unexpected outcomes (output and results, wider effects) for each fi implemented,
6.3 What is the initial evidence of effectiveness? This last should include productivity and jobs, but also failure
Case study sections Task 3 EQs
concrete examples of outcomes rates – it should also include other goals relevant to the scheme, e.g. if a venture capital scheme sets out to stimulate early stage research, development and innovation.
6 Conclusions on the effectiveness and added value of FIs
6.1 Consistency of implementation and practice with statement of goals and theory of change
1.5 Does implementation and practice (e.g. selection of firms, forms of support, outcomes) actually fit with statements of goals and theory of change?
6.2 Achievement of FI strategic and operational objectives in the context of OP objectives, as defined in the TOC
6.5 What is the evidence for and against the theories of change and contribution stories?
6.3 Cost effectiveness of different types of FIs and grant schemes
6.4 What is the initial evidence for efficiency/cost-effectiveness (i.e. comparing outcomes to costs such as those in point 3 above)? How does this compare between different FEIs and with the main alternative sources of finance in the region/country (e.g. grants, private schemes)?
6.4 Optimum scale of FI schemes 7. Optimum scale. Given
implementation, costs and outcomes what can be said about the minimum, optimum and maximum sizes of scheme and level of individual support?
6.5 Improved market making for equity/venture capital funds
8. Market-making for equity/venture capital funds. Is there evidence of successful creation/expansion of the equity/venture capital market in the region/country? Is this likely to be sustained / sustainable in the long term, even if public money is withdrawn? How much of a funding gap remains, what links with universities, what other means of supporting high-tech start-ups? Is there any evidence of added value of ERDF vs private equity/venture capital funds?
6.6 Added value of ERDF vs. private equity/venture capital funds
8.1 Is there any evidence of added value of ERDF vs private equity/venture capital funds?
6.7 Elements of good practice from the case study
9. Good practice. Are there any good practice examples in the above terms (setup/implementation, early signs of effectiveness, sustainability/expansion of markets, good practice projects). What do we learn from comparing good
Case study sections Task 3 EQs
practice cases with others? What makes the difference?
3.5 Are there good examples in terms of management, including not just
successful investments, but also costs and delays?
6.8 Problems and solutions in carrying out the case study